Robert "It is the alarmist claims that would imply extremely costly changes to society. " Nice to see "imply"; points to you realizing that claim is just a bit of rhetoric BajaDreamer Funny, but NASA also admitted that they were only 38% certain about 2014 having been the hottest year. Kudryashov, M. Will Watson Cooling will never be a problem for our species again.

Correct “Take a look and see what you think. Robert " You are not able to provide any evidence that co2 has EVER been shown to have an impact on global temperature. " Unfortunately, that wasn't part of the discussion malloryrex says: June 24, 2014 at 2:25 pm What kind of credible source is this? However, this bias is consistent with previous studies documenting the impact of the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years because the majority of poor

Reply SMS says: January 19, 2014 at 4:13 pm I'm seething. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ . Truly amazing "science"! much of the paleoclimatic record makes no sense at all unless CO2 feedbacks are figured in.

NCDC uses two correction processes to remove inhomogeneities associated with factors unrelated to climate such as changes in observer practices, instrumentation, and changes in station location and environment that have occurred I would love to see this exposure hit the mainstream media like a ClimateGate episode. Eric Barnes says: January 22, 2014 at 3:35 am A good analogy for Drewski is … Steve goes into his basement and finds a group of climate scientists engaged in a Reply Zeke Hausfather says: January 19, 2014 at 7:28 pm If you don't like NCDC's approach, you can always use Berkeley Earth's data, which starts with the raw data and cuts

In some cases the weather station actually was moved and instead of being given a new name and numerical designation, the newly moved station still had the old number and name, That one evidently appears before the first one. Information about the extended reconstruction sea surface temperature (ERSST) analysis is available to all users. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/18/breaking-noaa-nasa-quietly-conceded-2014-was-probably-not-the-warmest-year-on-record/#comment-1811625394 Robert "What part don't you understand?" The unwillingness to quote and cite what you think supports your claims : "NOAA and NASA have both declared the probability of 2014 being

For example, a reported global value of +0.50C +/- 0.08°C indicates that the most likely value is 0.50°C warmer than the long-term average, but may fall between 0.42°C and 0.58°C above It’s all art, the art of deception. In combination with the well known fact of CO2's light/heat trapping properties, there is more than ample evidence of CO2's impact on GMT. Reply rw says: January 19, 2014 at 8:51 pm It's interesting that that's the same discontinuity that the troposphere records show.

the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Will Watson Like I said, every kind of wrong, right out in the open. The UK’s record July temperature this year alongside the runways at Heathrow Airport – by around 0.1 deg C – and widely PR’d by the Met Office was seperately checked and Expand a bit for us please.

The rest of the world will start preparing for the coming cooling. Also note that in V1, the adjustments went flat after 1990, and in V2 they rise exponentially after 1990. Figure 4 applies to only TOB adjustment, but their other bias adjustments are brand new; a "pair-wise algorithm" as explained on pages 997 on. According to the percentiles map, much-warmer-than-average conditions were present across parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the northeastern and western Pacific Ocean, and parts of the Indian Ocean.

You were proven wrong, Now you want to move the goal posts. I have no incentive to run around checking many links. citizenschallenge says: February 1, 2014 at 7:09 pm That's the sad thing about you folks, you think it's all a joke that can be dismissed with insults and ridicule. P.

Better stick with your day job. But that melt is being outstripped by all the other gains in Antarctica. Given how determinedly warmist the Met office is it is not surprising that they did not find it all curious that the temperature rose by 0.9 deg C for a two It's a good example for readers to follow, to see how the alarmists operate.

Nevertheless, there is one statistical calculation which supports the adjustments -- do you know what that calculation is? In other words, heat that was anomalous in 1998, is now normal. Students will learn that the processed data actually SHOULD resemble the raw data! Also you should read or watch Murry Salbys CO2 Study.

With the rejection of traditional values and mores, people seem to need to hang their hat somewhere. The way you describe chart 3 in words, the difference (V2-V1) should be a flat line of around -1 at the left, which shifts to 0 at 1998. temperatures? Ronald Forbes says: June 24, 2014 at 7:43 am Another source that totally validates the adjustment is the Grace twin satellites showing earth ice melting over ten years - and the

And you'd also see much deeper problems than that, dishonesty. Arguing the politics is more like arguing religion. I put a lot of hours into that, using Excel VBA as a front-end to download data and store locally in a more usable format for the grid analysis, but I Nature 329:403-8.

That makes them wrong. That may be how you validate your models but it's not how mathematical modelers do it. Select national information is highlighted below. (Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA George Orwell explained how this worked. “He who controls the past controls the future.

It may be a movement, a philosophy, a value, or something else, but a religion it's not. > chicagojohn says: May 8, 2015 at 1:42 am Morgan Wrote: "…Ice core proxies Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. Likewise, the chance of the actual value being beyond the cool end of the range is 2.5% (one in forty chance). NASA is not making any such claims ; those fractions of a degree mean that 2014 was warmer than 1998, 2005 and 2010.

Robert If you have evidence, bring it forward. Eric Barnes says: January 23, 2014 at 12:05 am Moron, I mean Drewski, name something concrete climate science has done for humanity (other than shake it down for more cash). But, Dr. I believe their fraud will become more evident at the end of the present decade, when the oceans become colder and solar radiations decline.

Reply Jeff says: January 20, 2014 at 3:32 am It's not about conditioning with journalists, it's just that they are leftists too. I don't see the queue to defend it. The net result of this new version of GHCN-M reveals very small changes in temperature and ranks. Even in that case it turns out that the highest probability is that 2014 is not the hottest.

You better keep an eye on the old record high and low temperatures records too, in case they turn their attention to corrupting them too. On the list of unbelievable hoaxes, yours has just shot to number 1. My bad. Will Watson It's not a given "error in measurement", bro'.

Adjustments which are documented as positive, are implemented as negative. Surprisingly, Karl et al report almost no effect on Arctic region estimate in recent years despite enhanced coverage there. In other words, CO2 is the dependent variable; it is not the *cause*, but rather the *effect* of increasing other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, etc). You do not think much do you? I am sure that at least you have it all archived. This preserves local short-term variability without affect...

KevinM That is to be very much respected. We're you even born then? M. Not for the faint hearted.A more readable and succinct summary of the whole satellite data situation is found in Tamino's MSU. This error affected North Polar DX data for 1986, 1990-1992, but did not affect data in other years. DP it makes a lot of sense to me dummy… KevinM The "Subsidies" are the same R&D credits given to any company that researches and develops new product and process'. Punditator There will...

That's clear from the data I linked to: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (see page 3) The atmospheric CO2 record is the directly measured atmospheric CO2 either in the atmosphere (from the many sites around However it is one of the few places on earth that has undergone a tiny bit of COOLING during the period of global warming: e.g. NOAA maintains a network of thousands of stations, many of which have volunteer observers. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)....